Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Nand Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 5 January, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5659 of 2022
----------
Krishna Nand Dubey .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/ Principal Secretary,
Department of Forest, Enviromental and Climate Change, having
office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., through its
Managing Director-cum-Upper Principal Chief Conservator,
having office at Ashok Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Minor Forest Produce Circle, Jharkhand
State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Hazaribagh having
office at P.O. + P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
4. The Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Produce Project Division,
Forest Development Corporation Ltd., having office at P.O. + P.S.
& District Daltonganj.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate
For the Resp. : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V
Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
----------
05/ 05.01.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the
respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as he has worked
for more than 22 years under the respondents.
3. At the very outset, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this
Court in W.P.(S). No. 4561 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases and this Court
after hearing the parties delivered judgment on 15.12.2023 and allowed the
said writ petitions directing the respondents to consider the case of each
individual petitioners and thereafter pass order for regularization of their
services from the date they have been stopped from working with all
consequential benefits. The Hon'ble Court further observed that since the
matter remains pending for several years before the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as before this Court, if any of the employees has retired or died, he is
also entitled for the benefits which are likely to be extended to other
similarly situated peresons with fixation of pensionery benefits and
extending the retiral benefits, if they come within the purview of
regularization. Learned counsel further submits that since similar issue has
already been decided by this Court, present petitioner is also entitled for the
similar benefits, what has been extended to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No.
4561 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors.) and other analogous cases.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as Jharkhand State
Forest Development Corporation Ltd. have no objection to the same and
very fairly submits that since the issue involved in the instant writ
application has already been decided by this Court, if a direction is given
the case of present petitioner shall be examined and if it is found that
present petitioner's case is also similar to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No.
4561 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors.) and other analogous cases, similar benefits shall be given to the
present petitioner also within a stipulated period of time.
5. Since the matter has already been set at rest by this Court in case
W.P.(S). No. 4561 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogous cases, there is no occasion to
pass a fresh order in the instant writ petition and petitioner of the present
writ petition shall also be guided by the observations made by this Court in
para-35 of the said judgment.
6. The relevant para of the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(S).
No. 4561 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand
& Ors.) and other analogous cases, reads as under:
35. From the aforesaid judgments cited above and
taking into consideration, it can comfortably be averred
that none of the directions, guidelines and observations
have at all been considered by the duly constituted
Committee while passing the impugned order. Since the
petitioners have been discharging their duties for last
25 years and the respondents were in need of their
services and they were allowed to continue on the said
post, it is not open for the respondents to return a
finding that their appointments were not irregular,
meaning thereby they were not legally appointed
employees. These appointments were never termed to be
illegal. They were appointed by duly constituted
Committee. They continued for more than 25 years. The
appointments were on a fixed salary. Later on, getting
all the benefits like regular / permanent employees, they
ought to have been considered for regularization. It is
binding on the respondents to give the benefits of
services rendered by them. The employees are not like
animals as to take work from them till they are useful
and thereafter when they become old of no use, they
should be thrown out. Such type of tendency of the
State-authorities cannot be appreciated; after all they
were employees of the respondent-Government.
Meaning thereby, the Department was in need of their
services, they could not be thrown out taking into
consideration the several guidelines as given in the case
of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra). The findings of the
constituted Committee does not spell out that any of the
guidelines have been taken into consideration, as
discussed above. On this score itself, the impugned
order dated 9.5.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
